National Academy of Sciences | 150 Year Anniversary

Questions? Call 800-624-6242

| Items in cart [0]

The National Academies Press

Rights & Permissions

topleft topright

NCHRP Report 516: Pier and Contraction Scour in Cohesive Soils (2004)
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)

Citation Manager

Wang, J, Briaud, J-L, Li, Y, Chen, H-C, Nurtjahyo, P, Transportation Research Board. "6.9 Pier Shape Effect: Numerical Simulation Results." NCHRP Report 516: Pier and Contraction Scour in Cohesive Soils. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2004.

Please select a format:

BibTeX EndNote RefMan


Page
49
bottomleft bottomright
Page
49
Front Matter (R1-R10)
Summary (1-7)
1.4 Why Was This Problem Addressed? (8-8)
1.5 Approach Selected to Solve the Problem (9-9)
2.4 Erodibility and Correlation to Soil and Rock Properties (10-13)
3.3 EFA Test Data Reduction (14-14)
3.4 EFA Precision and Typical Results (15-16)
4.2 Small Flood Followed by Big Flood (17-17)
4.3 Big Flood Followed by Small Flood and General Case (18-18)
4.4 Hard Soil Layer Over Soft Soil Layer (19-20)
4.6 Equivalent Time (21-21)
4.7 Extended and Simple SRICOS-EFA Method (22-23)
4.8 Case Histories (24-25)
4.9 Predicted and Measured Local Scour for the Eight Bridges (26-28)
4.10 Conclusions (29-29)
5.4 Measuring Equipment (30-31)
5.5 Soils and Soil Bed Preparation (32-32)
5.6 Flume Tests: Procedure and Measurement (33-33)
5.8 Shallow Water Effect on Maximum Pier Scour Depth (34-35)
5.9 Shallow Water Effect on Initial Shear Stress (36-36)
5.11 Pier Spacing Effect on Maximum Scour Depth (37-37)
5.12 Pier Spacing Effect on Initial Scour Rate (38-38)
5.15 Pier Shape Effect on Initial Scour Rate (39-39)
5.18 Attack Angle Effect on Maximum Scour Depth (40-41)
5.20 Attack Angle Effect on Scour Hole Shape (42-42)
5.21 Maximum Scour Depth Equation for Complex Pier Scour (43-44)
6.2 Existing Knowledge on Numerical Simulations for Scour (45-45)
6.5 Shallow Water Effect: Numerical Simulation Results (46-46)
6.6 Shallow Water Effect on Maximum Shear Stress (47-47)
6.7 Pier Spacing Effect: Numerical Simulation Results (48-48)
6.9 Pier Shape Effect: Numerical Simulation Results (49-50)
6.10 Pier Shape Effect on Maximum Shear Stress (51-51)
6.11 Attack Angle Effect: Numerical Simulation Results (52-52)
6.12 Attack Angle Effect on Maximum Shear Stress (53-53)
6.13 Maximum Shear Stress Equation for Complex Pier Scour (54-55)
7.3 Flume Tests and Measurements (56-56)
7.4 Flume Tests: Flow Observations and Results (57-58)
7.5 Flume Tests: Scour Observations and Results (59-59)
7.6 Maximum and Uniform Contraction Depths for the Reference Cases (60-62)
7.7 Location of Maximum Contraction Depth for the Reference Cases (63-63)
7.8 Correction Factors for Transition Angle and Contraction Length (64-64)
7.9 SRICOS-EFA Method Using HEC-RAS Generated Velocity (65-65)
7.11 Scour Depth Equations for Contraction Scour (66-67)
8.3 Transition Angle Effect: Numerical Simulation Results (68-68)
8.4 Contracted Length Effect: Numerical Simulation Results (69-71)
8.6 Maximum Shear Stress Equation for Contraction Scour (72-75)
9.3 The Integrated SRICOS-EFA Method: Step-by-Step Procedure (76-80)
9.5 The SRICOS-EFA Program (81-83)
9.6 Output of the SRICOS-EFA Program (84-84)
10.4 Gill (1981) Database: Contraction Scour (85-87)
10.5 Remarks (88-88)
11.2 Preparation of the Future Hydrographs (89-89)
11.3 Risk Approach to Scour Predictions (90-90)
11.4 Observations on Current Risk Levels (91-92)
12.2 Example 2: Single Rectangular Pier with Attack Angle and Approaching Hydrograph (93-94)
12.3 Example 3: Group Rectangular Piers with Attack Angle and Approaching Constant Velocity (95-98)
12.4 Example 4: Contracted Channel with 90-Degree Transition Angle and Approaching Constant Velocity (99-102)
12.5 Example 5: Contracted Channel with 60-Degree Transition Angle and Approaching Hydrograph (103-104)
12.6 Example 6: Bridge with Group Piers and Contracted Channel with Hydrograph in Contracted Section (105-110)
13.1 Conclusions (111-112)
13.2 Recommendations, (113-113)
References (114-115)
Nomenclature (116-117)
Unit Conversions (118-118)
Appendix A - Photographs from the Flume Tests (119-125)
Abbreviations used without definitions in TRB publications (126-126)

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 49
49 Block # 4 Block # 1 Block # 2 Block # 3 Figure 6.4. Grid system for the numerical simulation. Figures 6.12 and 6.13 show the shear stress distribution for By regression, the equation proposed for the correction S/ B = 1.88 and S/ B = 6. factor ksp giving the influence of the pier spacing on the max- imum shear stress is 6.8 PIER SPACING EFFECT ON MAXIMUM max S SHEAR STRESS -1.1 ksp = = 1 + 5e B . (6.3) max (single) The maximum shear stress max is the maximum shear stress that exists on the riverbed just before the scour hole starts to develop. One way to present the data is to plot 6.9 PIER SHAPE EFFECT: max/max(single) as a function of S/ B (Figure 6.10). The param- NUMERICAL SIMULATION RESULTS eter max(single) is the value of max for the case of a single pier in deep water and is given by Equation 6.1. The pier spac- The objective of this parametric study was to obtain the ing correction factor, ksp, is the ratio max/max(single). The data relationship between the maximum bed shear stress max and points on Figure 6.14 correspond to the results of the four the shape of rectangular piers (Figure 6.15). One of the numerical simulations. flume experiments was chosen to perform the numerical 0 .6 0 .5 0 .4 Depth (m) FANS E x p e r im e n t y /D = 2 0 .3 E x p e r im e n t y /D = 1 E x p e r im e n t y /D = 0 .5 0 .2 0 .1 0 0 0 .0 5 0 .1 0 .1 5 0 .2 0 .2 5 0 .3 0 .3 5 V e lo c it y ( m /s ) Figure 6.5. Velocity profile comparison between experiment and numerical simulation at the inlet.

OCR for page 50
50 Z = 0.25 X 0.35 Y 0.45 0.65 0.25 0.75 0.55 1.05 0.85 Flow -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 X/B Figure 6.8. Initial bed shear stress distribution (N/m2) around the pier (H/B = 2, V = 0.3m/s). simulation. A rectangular pier with a width of 0.061 m was (a). H/B=0.2 placed vertically in the 1.5-m-wide flume. The velocity was constant and equal to 0.33 m/s and the water depth was 0.375 m. Four different pier aspect ratios were simulated: Z L/ B = 1, 4, 8, and 12. The value of the Reynolds Number based on the width of the rectangular pier was Re = 20130 X and the Froude Number based on the width of the rectan- Y gular pier was Fr = 0.4267. Examples of velocity fields are presented in Figures 6.16 and 6.17 for rectangular piers with aspect ratios equal to 0.25 and 4. Figures 6.18 to 6.20 show the maximum bed shear stress contours around rectangular piers with different aspect ratios: L/ B = 0.25, 1, and 4. The location of the maximum bed shear stress was at the front corner of the rectangle. It was found that the maximum bed shear stress, max, was nearly constant for any aspect ratio above one. The value of max 2 1.5 Flow (b). H/B=2 1 Figure 6.6. Velocity vector around pier for (a) H/B = 0.5 -0.43 -0.37 0.2 and (b) H/B = 2. 0.09 Y/D 0.16 0.36 Pier 0 -0.37 -0.30 0.23 0.25 0.56 0.78 1.03 -0.5 -0.43 4.97 2.21 7.33 -1 Flow -1.5 -2 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 X/B X/D Figure 6.7. Initial bed shear stress distribution (N/m2) Figure 6.9. Normalized pressure (p/u2) contours for around the pier (H/B = 0.2, V = 0.3m/s). H/B = 2 on the riverbed.